HAL Id: hal-01924595
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01924595
Submitted on 16 Nov 2018HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Nexus thinking: how ecosystem services concepts and
practice can contribute balancing integrative resource
management through facilitating cross-scale and
cross-sectoral planning
Sandra Luque, Christine Fürst, Davide Geneletti
To cite this version:
Sandra Luque, Christine Fürst, Davide Geneletti. Nexus thinking: how ecosystem services concepts and practice can contribute balancing integrative resource management through facilitating cross-scale and cross-sectoral planning. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management, Taylor & Francis, 2017, 13 (2), 3 p. �10.1080/21513732.2017.1409310�. �hal-01924595�
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management
ISSN: 2151-3732 (Print) 2151-3740 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21
Nexus thinking – how ecosystem services concepts
and practice can contribute balancing integrative
resource management through facilitating
cross-scale and cross-sectoral planning
Sandra Luque, Christine Fürst & Davide Geneletti
To cite this article: Sandra Luque, Christine Fürst & Davide Geneletti (2017) Nexus thinking – how ecosystem services concepts and practice can contribute balancing integrative resource management through facilitating cross-scale and cross-sectoral planning, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:2, i-iii, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1409310
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1409310
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 21 Dec 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 416
INTRODUCTION
Nexus thinking
– how ecosystem services concepts and practice can contribute
balancing integrative resource management through facilitating cross-scale and
cross-sectoral planning
Sandra Luquea,b, Christine Fürstc,d and Davide Genelettie
aIRSTEA - National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, UMR TETIS, Montpellier CEDEX 5, France; bCentre for Biological Diversity (CBD), School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK;cInstitute for Geoscience and Geography,
Chair for Sustainable Landscape Development, Martin Luther University Halle, Germany;dKarlsruhe Institute for Technology, Institute for
Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research, Germany;ePlanning and Design for Sustainable Places Lab,
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Italy
This special issue (SI) is primarily composed of 12 papers generated from a selection of contributions from two main events. The first event was the biannual conference organized by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party (Division 8): Forest Landscape Ecology, held in Tartu (Estonia) in 2015, under the theme ‘Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Forested Landscapes’. The second event was a symposium organized during theEcosummit in Montpellier (France) in 2016 under the theme Ecological Sustainability: Engineering Change. The symposium was a joint effort from the EU-funded OpenNESS project, IALE and IUFRO communities, under the theme‘Scenarios and models of key indirect and direct drivers in relation to nature’s benefits to people’. These two events have a common ground addressing the use of ecosystem services (ES) in planning and policymaking at different scales. Although the focus of the events, and of this SI, is sectoral, emphasis is given on integrative multi-functional landscape management approaches, with examples mainly from forested landscapes. Besides, this common effort integrates important inputs from the forest cluster of the EU-OpenNESS project (Operationalization of natural capital and ecosystem services) that also participated in the symposia and exchange of ideas and approaches.
ES are broadly acknowledged as a means to sup-port and facilitate planning and decision-making pro-cesses. Overall, the use of ES in planning and decision making can contribute to improve the quality of land use and management proposals by addressing syner-gies, trade-offs and conflicts between economic, environmental and social goals, and unveiling hidden effects, such as those associated with regulating ser-vices at local and global scales (Saarikoski et al.2017; Turkelboom et al.2017). Furthermore, using ES as a reference for assessing planning alternatives facilitates
the development of decisions across administrative boundaries while supporting the performance of plans and projects within a wider social–ecological context with potential to reveal effects at different scales (local, regional and global). Still the intertwined relation between policies and decisions in land man-agement is complex because of the many challenges posed by multiple social, economic, political and environmental contexts and their interactions (Dick et al. 2017). Our objective is also to discuss how ES can be embedded in a nexus between nature, human-ity and scales to build a bridge for their implementa-tion in environmentally relevant policy sectors, spatial planning and land use (see also Rozas-Vásquez et al.2017).
Within this vein, in this SI, experts from different backgrounds provided their vision based on real-world experiences. The central question we proposed as challenge for this SI was:
How to make land-use choices actionable in the real world to address multifunctional landscape plan-ning needs?
Within this framework we believe this SI pro-vides grounds on the nexus-thinking approach, defined here as the ability to hold key develop-mental variables together, when searching for solutions at different levels within a holistic land-scape approach (Schmalzbauer and Visbeck 2016). We set up the scene for this SI with a position paper (Fürst et al. 2017), where we present the concept of ES embedded in this nexus approach. Thus, ES could help to facilitate the identification of synergies and potential conflicts between differ-ent policy sectors while helping to harmonize par-ticularly implementation measures so that no competing signals are sent out to spatial planning and land management. The nexus approach to ES could also contribute to widen the decision space
CONTACTSandra Luque sandra.luque@irstea.fr
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT, 2017 VOL. 13, NO. 2, i–iii
https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1409310
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
of land-use sectors and their actors through sup-porting trade-off analysis and identifying substitu-tional strategies in managing land and shaping landscape pattern.
A first set of papers in this issue is motivated on more generalized land-use planning and land man-agement aspects at landscape scale (e.g., Cebrián-Piqueras et al. 2017; Pinto-Correia et al. 2017; Sil et al. 2017; Syrbe et al. 2017). Meanwhile a second set of papers is centred on cases where the incorporation of ES concepts supports the implemen-tation of nexus thinking in planning and decision making (e.g., Bezák et al. 2017; Grunewald et al. 2017; Inkoom et al. 2017; Martínez Pastur et al. 2017; Matthews and Iverson 2017; Peri et al. 2017). The first group of papers comprises the elaboration of methodological frameworks in the search to develop options towards more sustainable landscapes. For example, Dick et al. (2017) tested the cascade model from the perspective of a multi-stakeholder focus group discussion.
The ES nexus concept could help to detect mis-matches between the policy sectors that could jeopar-dize the overall aim of a sustainable development through stirring competing spatial prioritization and land management strategies. Examples on this approach in this issue are the papers from Sil et al. (2017), Martínez Pastur et al. (2017), Matthews and Iverson (2017) and Syrbe et al. (2017).
Concluding, as presented in Fürst et al. (2017), the next step to make the nexus-thinking approach opera-tional will be deciding upon success or failure of the ES concept in terms of its consistent use in pre-assessing and co-developing policy, spatial, and land use planning instruments and implementation measures. We believe that these set of papers will create interest and inform integrative resource management practices through enabling cross-scale and cross-sectoral planning to eval-uate ES with a holistic approach.
Acknowledgments
This SI emerged from two conferences as mentioned in the text, in which the co-guest editors were involved as organizers. We thank the many people who organized, presented or attended these conferences, as they pro-vided many stimulating discussions and presentations. We thank the many reviewers who volunteered their time to review the articles in this SI. We also thank the enthusiasm and continuing support from the IUFRO, IALE and ELI communities that make these outcomes possible. We also thank the support of the EU-funded OpenNESS Project that partially funded the research of some of the papers published in this volume (research funded by the European Union EU FP7 project OpenNESS (Grant agreement no. 308428)). We espe-cially want to thank the authors for their time and patience to participate in this volume and the continuous support from IJBESM to make this SI possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported partially by the European Union EU FP7 project OpenNESS [308428].
References
Bezák P, Mederly P, Izakovičová Z, Špulerová J, Schleyer C.
2017. Divergence and conflicts in landscape planning across spatial scales in Slovakia: an opportunity for an ecosystem services-based approach? Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):119–135.
Cebrián-Piqueras MA, Trinogga J, Grande C, Minden V, Maier M, Kleyer M.2017. Interactions between ecosys-tem properties and land use clarify spatial strategies to optimize trade-offs between agriculture and species conservation. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):53–66. Dick J, Turkelboom F, Woods H, Iniesta-Arandia I,
Primmer E, Saarela S-R, Bezák P, Mederly P, Leone M, Verheyden W, et al. 2017. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosystem Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015
Dick J, Verweij P, Romina Rodela EC, Andrews C. 2017. Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):12–25.
Fürst C, Luque S, Geneletti D.2017. Nexus thinking-how ecosystem services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(1):412–421.
Grunewald K, Richter B, Meinel G, Herold H, Syrbe R-U.
2017. Proposal of indicators regarding the provision and accessibility of green spaces for assessing the ecosystem service “recreation in the city” in Germany. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):26–39.
Inkoom JN, Frank S, Fürst C.2017. Challenges and oppor-tunities of ecosystem service integration into land use planning in West Africa – an implementation frame-work. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):67–81.
Martínez Pastur G, Peri P, Huertas Herrera A, Schindler S, Díaz-Delgado R, Lencinas MV, Soler R. 2017. Linking potential biodiversity and three ecosystem services in silvopastoral managed forest landscapes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):1–11. Matthews SN, Iverson LR. 2017. Managing for delicious ecosystem service under climate change: can United States sugar maple (Acer saccharum) syrup production be maintained in a warming climate? Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):40–52.
Peri PL, López DR, Rusch V, Rusch G, Rosas YM, Martínez Pastur G.2017. State and transition model approach in native forests of Southern Patagonia (Argentina): linking ecosystem services, thresholds and resilience. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):105–118.
Pinto-Correia T, Almeida M, Gonzalez C.2017. Transition from production to lifestyle farming: new management
arrangements in Portuguese small farms. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):136–146.
Rozas-Vásquez D, Fürst C, Geneletti D, Muñoz F. 2017. Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem ser-vices in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 62:135–146. Saarikoski H, Primmer E, Saarela S-R, Antunes P, Aszalós
R, Baró F, Berry P, Blanko GG, Goméz-Baggethun E, Carvalho L, et al. 2017. Institutional challenges in put-ting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosystem Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019
Schmalzbauer B, Visbeck M, editors.2016. The contribu-tion of science in implementing the sustainable
development goals. Stuttgart: German Committee Future Earth. ISBN 978-3-9813068-5-9.
Sil Â, Fonseca F, Gonçalves J, Honrado J, Marta-Pedroso C, Alonso J, Ramos M, Azevedo JC.2017. Analysing carbon sequestration and storage dynamics in a changing moun-tain landscape in Portugal: insights for management and planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):82–104. Syrbe RU, and Grunewald K. 2017. Ecosystem service
supply and demand - the challenge to balance spatial mismatches. Int J Biodivers Sci Manage. 13(2):148–161. Turkelboom F, et al. 2017. When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst Serv.
